Employment Tribunal strike-out upheld after claimant's abusive correspondence
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal from a claimant whose case was struck out following his persistent, abusive correspondence.
• public
Tribunal dismisses appeal over strike-out decision
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal by Mr Patrick Henry McAuley, confirming that an Employment Tribunal was correct to strike out his claims against Ethigen Ltd. The case, which focused on the claimant’s conduct during proceedings, serves as a stark reminder of the limits of acceptable behaviour in litigation.
The original Employment Tribunal (ET) decision to strike out the claimant's case was based on his conduct, which the judge found to be scandalous, unreasonable, and vexatious. This behaviour included sending numerous, repetitive emails to the tribunal that contained gratuitous insults directed at the judiciary, the legal profession, and the respondent's witnesses.
"Litigating by correspondence"
Judge Barry Clarke, presiding over the EAT appeal, noted that the claimant had essentially attempted to litigate by correspondence. The emails in question contained serious, unsubstantiated allegations, including accusations of racism, corruption, and even criminal behaviour, such as a groundless claim of sexual assault against one of the respondent's witnesses.
The claimant's appeal rested on a procedural argument. He contended that the ET erred in law by relying on this correspondence, as it was not included in the hearing bundle and was not formally put to him during the hearing. He argued that this deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to make representations under rule 37(2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
EAT rejects procedural irregularity claims
The EAT rejected these arguments. Judge Clarke held that the correspondence formed an integral part of the conduct the tribunal was required to assess. Because the claimant was the author of the emails, he was intimately familiar with their contents. Furthermore, the judge found that the tribunal had explicitly informed the claimant of its intention to consider the correspondence, and the claimant had been questioned about it during the hearing.
The judgment emphasises that tribunals are not conducting an impermissible investigation when they evaluate a party's own conduct of the proceedings. In this instance, the claimant had been given an adequate opportunity to address the concerns regarding his behaviour, but he failed to show any insight or willingness to improve.
Consequently, the EAT found no error of law in the original decision. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that parties must maintain a standard of conduct that is not abusive or vexatious when engaging with the justice system.
Read the entire judgment here: McAuley v Ethigen Ltd [2026] EAT 126
